HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 04.12.00PC 4ltzfiA
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REOJIEST: A request for review of the Ukele Acres Preliminary
Plan for a nine (9) lot (with eleven (l l) dwelling
units) subdivision on approx. twenty-five (25) acres.
(Ukele pronounced "yoo-kel-ee").
APPLICANT: Ronald W. & Jean M. Smith
PLANNER: John L. Taufer & Associates, Inc.
ENGINEER: Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Hepworth-Pawlak, &
Resource Engineering
LOCATION: Parcel lies about %mile west of Silt along CR229
and Highway 6124. Section 4 & 9, Township 6
South, Range 92 West
WATER: Central water system served by an individual well
SEWER: Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS)
County Road 229 (I"Ikele Ln.) and Hvry 6124ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD-Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density
ADJACENT ZONING: A/RIRD to the east, north, & west
A,{ to the south
I. RELATIONSHIP TO TI{E COMPBEFIENSIVE PLAN
According to the Garfield County Comp Plan of 1984, this site lies in "District A: Urban
Area of Influence". Urban areas of influence are described as having the best ability to
absorb growth. Only areas with minor or moderate environmental constraints to
development, which surround a municipality, are included in this district. The
recommended density is no greater than seven (7) dwelling units per acre, or a density
which is compatible with the surroundings.
II. PROJECT INFORMATION
A. SiIe Description: The property is located south of the Cactus Valley Ditch, at the
Page I of St*
B.
intersection of ukele Lane and Highway 6124. There is very liule topographic
change across the site. It generally drains from the north to the southwest. It is
currently used to grue livestock and is also occupied by two (2) existing dwelling
units and an outbuilding. The existing residences are served via a paved driveway
from Hwy 6124. Yegetation consists of grass and a few cottonwood trees,
Develop,me{rt Proposal: The plan is to divide the roughly twenty-five (25) acres
into nine (9) residential lots with eleven (11) dwelling umts (a guest house and an
accessory dwelling unit are proposed on lots 4 and 6). All building will occur
within building envelopes, which range in size from ll2to l-ll3 acres. The
proposed density is I dwelling unit per 2-ll4 aores.
Adjacent Land Uses: Agricultural and residential land uses are adjacent to the
site.
C.
m.REMEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS:
Referrals were sent to the following:
A. Town of Silt: See memo dated 3l3)l00,pug" 15 . Silt requests the planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners to consider 6 conditions of
approval as discussed in section IV C ofthis report.
Buming Mountain Fire District: No comment.
RE-2 School District:No comment.
Public Seryice Company: Notes that in addition to the utility easements shown on
the plat, Public Service requests a ten (10) foot utility easement on all front lot
lines along Esther Court. ?t lU
u.s. west communigationilsee letter dated 3l7l00,page--b. carson Bell notes
the need for a fifteen (15) foot easement along the front lot line of Lots
1,2,3,7,8,&9 of Esther Ct.F. Gprfi=eld countv RoQd & Bridee: see memos dated zlnfio and3l9l}l,pagesea"
Bookcliff Soil Cpnservatjon District: No comment.
CO Geological Survey: See lettii Out.O 3127 lOO, pagQl. Cetia Greenman
states the site can be successfully developed if close attention is paid to surface
drainage, which is critical to managing problem soils. Her specific
recommendations can be found in section tV E of this staff report.
co,Division of wild.life: See letter dated 3l13l0o,pag€A, Don Crane states he
is quite familiar with the site and is satisfied that his stated concerns have been
sufficiently addressed in the covenants, which should be enforced to be made
effective.
CO Qept. of Health: No comment.
QO Div. Of Water Resources: See letter dated 3/2ll0},pug& The State
Engineer finds the proposed water supply will not cause material injury and is
Page 2 ot frl*
B.
C.
D.
E.
G.
H.
J.
K.
adequate.
Garfield Countv Veqetation Management: In a memo dated 3l22lOO, pag*
Steve Anthony states that the submitted revegetation plan is acceptable. He
requests the covenants be amended to reflect the CO Noxious Weed Act and
weed maintenance responsibilities, as discussed in section IV L of this report.M. Qarfield Qountv Sheriffs Dept.: See memo dated 3l7l}0,pug€3. Jim Sears
notes the need to ensure that all accesses provide the ability for emergency
equipment to turn around. All roads and street addresses must be clearly marked.N. CO Pept. of Transportation: No comment.
u.)w€ lffil.. w 3oIV. STAFF COMMENTS ' V
A. Subdivision: Single family dwellings are a use by right in the AIRIRD zone
district. The lot design generally meets the standards set forth in the SuMivision
Regulations. Pursuant to section 3.02.01 of the ZoningResolution, an accessory
dwelling unit may be approved as part of a subdivision. However, a guest house
may only be approved as a special use under the special use permitting process,
and can not be approved as part of this suMivision application process.
B. Garfield Countv Comprehensive Plan: The application appears to be in general
conformance with the comp plan.
C. Town of Silt Comprehensive_ Plar/Comments: See memo dated 3/3100. The
Town has requested the following conditions be placed on any approval of the
application:
residential units to provide a buffer from adjoining areas.
allowed and a requirement for use of kennels.
surrounding agricultural uses and minimization of conflicts.
the traffic impacts on the I-70 Silt interchange through coordination with the
town and other developers,
D. ADU/Guest Housg: As discussed previously, the regulations do not allow a guest
house to be approved by a subdivision process. The applicant must acquire guest
house approval via a special use permit process. The proposed accessory
dwelling unit on lot 6 must meet the following standards (5.03.21of the Zoning
Res.):
Page 3 of 6l'l
L.
(l) The minimum lot size shall be four (4) acres containing a building site with
slopes
less than 40% at least two (2) acres in size,
Q) fhe gross floor area for residential use occupancy shall not exceed 1500 sq. ft.(3) Approval from the subdivision homeowners association and/or allowed by
covenant if appl icab le.
(4) Proof of a legally adequate source of waterfor an additional dwelling unit.
(5) Compliance with the County individual sewoge disposal system regulations or
proof of a legal ability to connect to an approved central sewage treatmentfacitity.
(6) Only leasehold interests in the dwelling units is allowed.
(7) That all construction complies with the appropriate County building code
requirements. (A. 9 5 -07 6)
The building envelope shown on Lot 6 is approximately 1-113 acres. It will need
to be increased on the final plat to 2 acres. The proposed covenants (sect. 3. l)
currently prohibit more than one (l) single family dwelling and will need to be
amended. The covenants should also reflect that the accessory dwelling unit may
not exceed 1,500 sq. ft. and may not be sold as a separate interest.
GeotechnicallRadiation Information: In a letter dated ll3ll}},Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotechnical, lnc. notes that the site is not in a geologic setting that would
indicate high concentrations of radioactive materials in the natural soils and
underlying rock formation. There is the potential presence of radon gas and
testing could be done when the residences have been completed. F{P (iob
#199731 lllrl/99) states that it should be feasible to develop the property as
proposed on the site, provided good engineering principles and practices are used
in the design. I{P notes the importance of providing consultation during design
and construction to monitor the implementation of their geotechnical
recommendations. Site specific studies should be conducted for individual lot
development. The geologic conditions which shoutd be considered as planning
and design proceeds are:
FoundatioJ.r Conditions: Some areas may have collapse or settlement potential.
Typical mitigation includes control of landscape irrigation, reinforced foundation
walls, and low footing bearing pressures. Basements may need to be limited or
avoided due to shallow groundwater conditions.
Flooding & Surface Drainage: Due to the natural slopes, some flooding potential
should be expected. The irrigation ditch to the north may need to be lined.
Earthquake considerations: Residences should be designed to withstand
moderately strong ground shaking as the area is in seismic Risk Zone L
celia Greenman, of the colorado Geological Survey, states the site can be
successfully developed if close attention is paid to surface drainage, which is
critical to managing problem soils. Structures should have positive drainage,
downspouts should discharge at least 6' from tre houses, xeriscape (water
Page 4 ot fill
F.
conserving) landscape conoepts should be used, and each lot should have an
identified backup site for a leach field (leach fields should not be used as animal
containment areas or for auxillary building sites). These recommendations
should be followed and staffsuggests the covenants be amended to reflect the use
of xeriscaping methods.
Wright Water Engineers (WWE) notes that due to the potential for settlement,
differential movement, and groundwater conditions on the project, site-specific
geotechnical studies should be conducted for proper foundation design. This
should be reflected in Section 22 of the covenants and on the plat.
Access/Traffic/Road Maintenance: Esther Court, the new proposed access, will
provide access to six (6) of the lots (lots 1,2,3,7,8,&9) from County Road229
(Ukele Ln.). The proposed fiffy (50) foot wide right of way will terminate in a
fifty (50) foot cul-de-sac, with a total length of about six hundred (600) feet.
Access to the remaining three (3) lots (or five dwelling units) is from the existing
access drive from Highway 6124. The application proposes a forty (40) foot wide,
four hundred fifty (450) foot long right-of-way (note: the plat shows an easement,
the written application mentions a r-o-w, it must be a r-o-w ) consisting of a
sixteen (16) foot wide paved surface. A twenty-five (25) foot wide emergency
access easement, containing a twelve (12) foot wide gravel road, connects the two
dead ends. The applicant has attempted to eliminate a shortcut toHwy.6l24by
not providing a'lhrough road". All roads within the subdivision, except the
emergency, tank, and well access, will be chip sealed. The roadways will be
dedicated to the public but will be privately maintained by the Homeowners'
Association. The application includes an unsigned highway access permit
(CDOT permit #399152) which allows for 300 ADT. Per the comments of the
Road & Bridge Department, the applicant has agreed to dedicate an additional
fifteen (15) foot right-of-way along the county road for the entire length of the
development, to install all traffic control devices per code, not to place fencing in
the right of way, to pay the applicable road impact fees, and to obtain an access
permit from the R&B department.
The application appears to generally conform to sections 9:35 (road standards),
9:33 (dead end streets), and 9:34 (dedication to the public) except as follows:
permit.
of way and must be named on the final plat as well as slightly reconfigured so
that the 37' radius becomes a 50' radius.
Fire Protection: The site is located in the Burning Mountain Fire Protection
District (BMFPD) with ambulance services provided by Silt. The application
G.
Page5 af Wl'(
H.
states that the potable water system will provide the required fire flow for the
subdivision. Don zordel,the Fire Chiet indicated to the applicant that 10,000
gallons is necessary for fire protection. The tank has been sized to accommodate
the 10,000 gallons in addition to 350 gpd/unit storage for the homes. The water
supply is from an existing well located on lot 4. A 20,000 gallon partially buried
(approx. 2' of tanks are exposed) concrete water storage tank will be located on
the northwest corner of lot 7. A series of pumps will transport the water from the
well to the tank. The application funher states, "Please note that the BMFPD
adopts the UFC as reference only... The UFC would require a minimum of
180,000 gallons storage for this tank for the fire flow conditions... The service
demands from the subdivision would not be capable of using the volume of water
to keep the water in the tank from becoming stagnant... [which would require]
additional maintenance facilities." 7
rifien confirmation from the Fire District that the proposed development has
adequate water and facilities must be provided as part of the preliminary plan.
WWE notes ttrat the letter should specifically contain approval of the 10,000-gallon
!s-re"q"g*.
water: The application states the water supply will be from an existing well
located on lot 4. A copy of the approved well permit was included in the
application (#53426-F). The well will operate under wDwcD (west Divide
Water Conservancy District) contract #950815JS(a). Resource Engineering found
no evidence of any wells within 600 feet of the subject well. water will be
transported to the water storage tank on lot 7 by a series of pumps. The
community water system will be built at the applicants' expense but will be
owned and maintained, to the property line, by the HOA, as specified in the
covenants. A24 hr. well test reveals that the well is capable of physically
producing over six (6) times the daily in-house demand for the subdivision.
Water samples indicate the limits for sodium, yg!fa15:, dissolved, solilb and
hardness areS.ce$gg. The propose.i water trea.tment is chlorinaffi as
discussed in SGM's letter dated 2122100. The chlorine injection, along with the
contact time, will resolve the non-coliform bacteria problem. Although the water
would be safe for drinking the water would still be'ohard". SGM encourages
individual homeowners to determine further treatment as they desire through the
use of water softeners and/or reverse osmosis systems.
The State Engineer finds the proposed water supply will not cause material injury
and is adequate (see letter dated 3121100, page _). The approved well permit
will limit the use of the well to household purposes inside l1 single family
dwellings, the irrigation of 1.5 acres of lawns/gardens (approx. 6,000 sq.ft.per
dwelling), and the watering of domestic animals.
Page6 of W 14
WWE has commented as follows (letter dated 3/30/00):
supply due to the presence of non-coliform bacteria and the relatively shallow
well construction.
Conservancy District (WDWCD) water allotment contract. The results of the
water quality and the need for individual water treatment facilities should also
be included in this section.
should be removed from Section2}.Z. We recommend that this section provide
initial rules and regulations for use and operation of the irrigation system,
substitute water supply plan. A water court approved augmentation plan will
ultimately be required for the well. The Applicant should include this cost in
the SuMivision Improvements Agreement or indicate in Section 20.1 of the
covenants that the lot owners are responsible for this cost with the WDWCD
when it arises.
potable water systern is not designed for outside irrigation and the covenarfs strould
prOhibitSuChUSeSinSeCtiOn20.l and20.2.rN br)Irrt ps $-rr'.. >r'.;1 ett 1::yt2'rn't-,
grueous chlorine for a small HOA system.
should be included in Section 20.1 of the covenants.
InigationlDitcheslEasements: The plan reflects a twenty-five (25) foot wide ditch
easement for the Cactus Valley ditch. The building envelopes have been set back
thirty (30) feet from the easement, as requested at the sketch plan public meeting.
The applicants hold a reliable water right of senior priority in the Cactus Valley
ditch which entitles them to 3.75 shares, or 0.53 cfs, of irrigation water. A
central, independent gravity flow raw water inigation system is proposed to
service each lot. A 5,400 gallon buried water storage tank will be located on the
northeast comer of lot 6. The HOA will own and maintain the inigation system
to each property line. The individual low owner will be responsible for providing
and maintaining their own booster pump.
The wananty deed for the properfy (8870,P727) describes an access easement
across the northwest corner of the property for the use of the Dunbars, and their
heirs and assigns, to maintain their adjudicated springs and their headgate from
the Cactus Valley Ditch. The applicant has noted no legal description of the
easement currently exists. The applicant must locate the easement on the final
plat and create/include a legal description of said easement on the final plat.
PageT ot fi t4
J.
WWE also notes the following (letter dated 3/30/00):
DitchCompany wittra format EasementAgreemantorotlrerwise accepted in udting
by the ditch company, whichever may be the appropriate legal course of action.
project
Waste.water: The applicant has investigated the possibility of connecting to the
Town of Silt's wastewater services and determined it is infeasible for two (2)
reasons: r
1) The nearest rnainline is approx.fone (l) mile away and connection would
be too costly.
2) The grade differential would require a lift station to force the flow back to
town-
For these reasons, each lot will be serviced by an engineered Individual Sewage
Disposal System (ISDS). Although a high groundwater condition exists and the
soils are slow to percolate, SGM has stated confidence in engineered ISDS given
the two plus (2+) acre lot sizes. An Evapotranspiration Absorption system (ET),
which may require considerable area to place, will likely be needed. The
application states that operation and maintenance of the ISDS will be the
responsibility of individual lot owners. It states that those responsibilities are
contained within the covenants and maintenanca guidelines will be distributed to
each lot owner at closing.
WWE strongly discourages the use of ET systems for this project. In addition,
WWE states that an ISDS management plan should be included in Section 7 ofthe
covenants. Plan components typically include special design considerations/criteria,
inspection schedule, and a homeo\Mlers guide to maintaining an ISDS system.
A good source for this information is "Maintaining Your Septic System-A Guide
for Homeowners" in Pipeline, Fall 1995, Vol.6, No.4 sponsored by the EPA.
Staff suggests this brochure be provided to all homeowners (and can provide this
information to the applicant upon request).
Drainage: There are no major drainageways located on the properly. The
application states storm water drainage will be collected by means of borrow
ditches and culverts and transported to four (4) different detention ponds located
on the southwest corners of lots 3,4,5,&6. The pond on lot 3 will serve to capture
the increased flow rates on lots 1,2,&3 and7,8,&9. Lots 4,5,&6 will require
individual ponds to service each lot. SGM notes that it could be argued that lots 5
€ : lreyg Sliltil"g g..up.lopmelt 1q{ nojlory aiii11a# m;} be nec*sany .-Z- *
K
\N *r4 ,' rx.ir,ee{ {s<;,1,(* Vol1,r11 u}r-c \trtrr.- 1.a.tu} n,,s1;!,, Tvlt.r?
Page 8 of q t'l 'i' i'-1: cpt' 1a1: , t;.' D ti lt-.1-qi-' . Ai; \ !, I
*(;
'",rl
V-\'
[WWEfotes the following (letter dated 3/30/00):
\L--Tfre existing drainage system slrould be shown (e.g., culverts across Highlvay 6) and
it should be demonstated howthe proposed system fits in with the exrrsting systems.
construct the "individual" detention ponds. A drainage easement should be
shown on the Plat for these ponds. If constructed by lot owners, then the
engineering criteria for the pond to comply with County regulations and the
Master Drainage Plan for the project must be indicated on the Plat. A Colorado
registered professional engineer must design the ponds.
responsible for maintaining a functional detention basin(s).
L. WildlifeA/egetation: The application includes a DOW WRIS wildlife habitat
checklist. It indicates that the following are entirely in the area;I eatd Eagle Winter Range
I Mule Deer Winter Range
I Uute Deer Overall Range
I trrtute Deer Resident Population
The applicant contacted Don Crane, of the DOW, regarding the project. He was
most concerned with conflicts between dogs and wildlife and maintaining low
fencing.
In his review letter dated 3ll3l00 Don Crane states he is quite familiar with the
site and is satisfied that his stated concerns have been sufficiently addressed in
the covenants. The DOW can find no significant impact to wildlife if the
protective covenants are approved and enforced in their present form.
Existing vegetation consists of irrigated pasture grasses, irrigated blue grass
lawns, and cottonwood trees. The existing trees will be protected through the
development of the prqect. Steve Anthony, of GarCo Vegetation Management,
has stated that the revegetation plan is acceptable (the plan is contained on pg.4 of
Taufer's 2l2ll00letter). He has requested the covenants be amended as follows:t Include language that reminds landowners that it is their responsibility,
according to the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, to manage any County Noxious
Weeds that are on their property (he suggests this go in the "maintenance of
property" section).
I Management of noxious weeds on roadways, drainage ditches, and
common areas should be addressed. Responsibility for this should be
designated.
WWE notes the following (letter dated 3/30/00):
Page 9 of t&.tl
discuss/analyze the impacts, if any, from the project Field observations indicate
that wetlands may exist in the southem and western areas ofthe property.
M. Fees: As determined by Section 9:80 of the Subdivision Regulations, the
applicant will be required to pay $200 per each new parcel (8 new lots X $200 =
$1,600.00) for School District fees in lieu of land dedication. The property
appears to lie in uea6 of the Capital Improvements plan. The road impact fees
are approximately $2,100 per dwelling unit that impacts a county road (6 units),
less the appropriate discounts. In the event any fees increase before the time of
final plat, the increased fees shall be paid. Any applicable fire district fees will be
due prior to final approval of the final plat. The applicant should be aware that
property taxes will increase following the change from agricultural valuation.
N. Covenants: The covenants should be amended as discussed elsewhere in this
report and as follows:
downward and towards the interior of the subdivision".
O. Other Utilities: All utilities must be buried. Propane tanks will be screened from
view.
Electric and telephone: Public Service
Natural Gas: not available. Propane gas will be utilized.
Cable t.v.: not available.
V. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing
before the Planning Commission;
2. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties
were heard at that hearing;
3. That for the above stated and other reasons? the proposed subdivision is in the best
interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of
the citizens of Garfreld County;
4. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning
Resolution, as amended;
5. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations of 1984.
Page 10 of l& 14
VI. RECO\,IkIENDAIION: '^ND
'1 ^'r'9t'
Staffrecommends APPROVAL of the Ukele Acres preliminary plan application with )rt}tconditions as follows:
That all representations made by the applicant in the application, and at the public
hearing before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless
specifically altered by the Planning Commission.
The final plat shall reflect a fifteen (15) foot wide utility easement along Esther
Ct., as requested by Public Service and U.S. West.
lncreased historic runoff from the property shall be prohibited.
One (1) accessory dwelling unit is approved on Lot 6 provided the applicant
complies with the provisions of section 5.03.21of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978, as amended. No guest house will be permitted on Lot 4
without first obtaining a special use permit.
All geology related recommendations made by Hepworth Pawlah the Colorado
Geological Service, and Wright Water Engineers shall be complied with.
The applicant shall submit a copy of a fully executed approved CDOT access
permit to staffat least two (2) weeks prior to the Board of County Commissioners
meeting.
The existing driveway accessing State Highway 6124 shallbe improved to County
subdivision standards including:
feet of chip/seal pavement.
The applicant shall submit a copy of a letter of approval from the Burning Mtn.
Fire District to staffat least two (2) weeks prior to the Board of County
Commissioners meeting. The letter shall include confirmation that the proposed
development has adequate water and facilities for emergency response and that
the proposed 10,000 gallon tank is acceptable.
Wright Water Engineers comments regarding the water supply and water system
shall be conditions of approval as follows:
supply due to the presence of non-coliform bacteria and the relatively shallow
well construction. The mpa analysis shall be included in the application for
final plat.
Conservancy District (WDWCD) water allotment contract. The results of the
water quality and the need for individual water treatment facilities shall also
be included in this section.
shall be removed from Section 20.2. This section shall provide initial rules and
Page 1l otqkfi
L
2.
4.
s
6.
7.
8.
9.
P
"ilY $
y 1" regulations for use and operation of the inigation system.
,, -y il t_r,r)> The well permit issued for the project (53426-F) is based on the WDWCD's
^d;' " $ f hr substitute water supply plan. A water court approved augmentation plan will
N',-,V\ ^ ,b "^S S^ ultimately be required for the well. The Applicant shall include this cost in
\' _rd''.nr' 0Y the Subdivision Improvements Agreement or indicate in Section 20.1 of the
.f,t^, n
^
P q ' covenants that the lot owners are responsible for this cost with the WDWCD
,;( '^,P\-.$( ./ potable water system is not designed for outside irrigation and the covenants shall
V u$* (}
^
A prohibit such uses in Section 20.1and20.2.
'- L$".-.\' ^.0 ' ratherthan gaseous chlorine.
(.r.-* *N
-"
'.dY xa
'{n,d*
be included in Section 20.1 of the covenants.
10. The Dunbars' easement shall be legally described and shown on the final plat.
11. Wright Water Engineers comments concerning the ditch shall be conditions as
follows:
Ditch Compalrywith a formal EasementAgeement or otherwise accepted in uniting
by the ditch company, whichever may be the appropriate legal course of action.
"atfractive nuisance", and take appropriate measures to ensure safety.
6il The use of Evapotranspiration Absorption sewage.disposal systems fbn shall be ,or*^)\-/ prohibited. A (l qf*-. Ay A<v,-o *1,il-ld: 1r'- t1,1""'6v-et" 4^* y?-
13. wrigii;iutrr'nrgin.irJ-;;,";l,rl*io* conceming drainage shall be Pn l' L-n'r'r^
conditions as follows:
it shall be demonstrated howthe proposed system fits in with the existing systems.
(at least two (2) weeks prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners).
weeks prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners).
construct the "individual" detention ponds. A drainage easement shall be shown
on the Plat for these ponds, If constructed by lot owners, then the engineering
criteria for the pond to shall comply with County regulations and the Master
Drainage Plan for the project shall be indicated on the Plat. A Colorado
registered professional engineer shall design the ponds.
responsible for maintaining a functional detention basin(s).
14, At least two (2) weeks prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the
applicant shall address the presence/absence ofwetland areas and discuss and
analyze the impacts, if any, from the project.
15. Applicable fees shall be paid prior to recordation of the final plat.
Page 12 of 14
Ual e( Efle alst-t^**' cl,-10 P* c|l,c*""6'{*}
W^;W,.u(stag
u!/. 4 P ao o-w''an-Awl'
The covenants shall be amended as follows:
addresses be cleady marked and visible from the right of way.
ttrat it shall not exceed 1,500 sq. ft. and may not be sold as a separate interest.
xeriscaping methods shall be encowaged for geotechnical reasons.
Section 22 shall state that due to the potential for settlement, differential
movement, and groundwater conditions on the project, site-specific
geotechnical studies shall be conducted for proper foundation design.
Section 7 shall include a specific ISDS management plan.
Language shall be included that reminds landowners that it is their
responsibility, according to the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, to manage any
County Noxious Weeds that are on their property. Management of noxious
weeds on roadways, drainage ditches, and common areas shall be addressed
and responsibility for this shall be designated.
Section 21 Lighting shall be amended so that the second sentence reads
"... shall be directed downward and towards the interior of the subdivision".
17. The following plat notes shall be shown on the final plat (some of these notes are
in the covenants but shall be duplicated on the plat):
1) All irrigation ditches and ditch easements are to be recognized and maintained
as existing and in place, in the usual manner,
2) One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be requtred
to be confined within the building envelope,
3) No open hearth solid-fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the
subdivision. One (1) new solid-fuel buming stove as defined by C,R.S. 25-7401,
et. sew., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any
dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of
natural gas burning stoves and appliances.
4) All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior
lighting will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except
that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the
property boundaries.
5) No further divisions of land within the Subdivision will be allowed.
6) Site specific geologic studies must be performed on individual building
envelopes to determine design level recommendations.
7) Radon gas may be present and should be tested for once building construction
is completed.
8) Lot 6 shall be permiued one (l) accessory dwelling unit provided it meets the
conditions of section 5.03.21of the Garfield County ZonngResolution of 1978,
as amended.
9) Homeowrers should consider firther treatment such as water softeners or reverse
Page 13 ot $qft
16.
osmosis to eliminate problems associated with hard water.
l0) Colorado is a "Right-to-Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq.
Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities,
sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal
and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a
healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights,
mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public
roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or
otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides,
any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non-
negligent agricultural operations.
l1) All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law
and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation
ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using
property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining
property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights
and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A
good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living &
Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension
Office in Garfield County.
fnf -@lQ o.r W>>q',5
r-',u- ffuffi';,wy ^ftu) ^^.-^o
T 'oa1s >l,u W V>sa1sasn
Page 14 of Ml4
GARFIELD COUNTY PROJECT REFERRAL
MEMORANDUM
TOI KIT LYON. GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNER
FROM: DAVIS FARRAR - SILT PLANNER
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON T}M UKLE ACRES SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY
PLAT REFERRAL
DATE: 03/30/00
CC: CRAIG OLSON - SILT TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Thank you for the opportunity to review the llkele Acres Preliminary Plan subdivision
application. This project lies within the urban growth boundary shown on the Silt
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and within the three-mile planning area around the
town. The application states that the request is for a total of 9 single-family residential
lots plus a caretaker unit and a guesthouse for a total of I I residential structures on 24.98
acres.
The Silt comprehensive plan identifies this area as Agricultural Conservation PUD.
Under this land use classification, the comprehensive plan anticipates and proposes
clustering of residential lots for purposes of preserving agricultural lands and agricultural
functions. The proposed development design includes no clustering of lots or structures.
In the comprehensive plan under this section "land use general policies" the plan states,
"suburban sprawl will be avoided. The subdivision of rural agricultural areas outside the
designated urban $owth areas for the purpose of creating low density residential
development on large lots of two, ten or 35 acres will have undesired effects including:
changing the rural character of the area into one of suburban sprawl; making it diflicult
for adjacent agricultural uses to operate; placing residents in remote areas where urban
services for road maintenance, transportation, recreation, police and emergency services,
water and sewer, human services in schools are inefficient and expensive to provide."
The plan goes on to state, "low density sprawl development unnecessarily burdens
municipal and County financial resources often resulting in increased taxes in which
urban areas subsidize low density developments."
Garfield County passed a "right to farm" resolution several years ago for purposes
supporting continued agricultural operations in the County. Subdivision of rural areas
into two-acre gnd style developments will add to the adverse pressures on agricultural
operations in the form of dogs at large, trespass, complaints about chemical applications
and similar objections from residential dwellers.
5
Recently, the Silt Area Economic Development Council identified preservation of
agricultural functions in the Silt area as an important goal. Their intent is not to eliminate
residential subdivision activity but rather work to make it compatible with surrounding
agricultural functions. This can be achieved through clustering of lots, strict dog
controls, education of new residents about agricultural operations and similartechniques.
The proposed development does not include any mechanisms that further the objectives
of the S. A. E. D. C., Silt Comprehensive Plan or the Garfield County "Right to Farm"
resolution.
The I 70 interchange located in Silt is impacted by ever increasing traffic volumes from
Silt and the surrounding areas. In an effort to address the traffic impacts to this
interchange, the town is conditioning development approvals with a requirement to
evaluate the traffic impacts created by individual projects on that interchange. Most
recently, the town has proposed that the developers of Stillwater Ranch, Ferguson
Crossing and Spruce Meadows participate in a comprehensive study of traffic impacts to
the interchange zrrea. Individual developer participation is to be based upon the
proportionate impacts created by each project on traflic volumes. The town recommends
that the developers of the Ukele Acres Subdivision also participate in this analysis based
upon the developments proportionate share of generated traffic. Using an accepted
single-family residential traffic generation figure of 9.55 single trips per day per dwelling
unit, the project will generate approximately 106 vehicle trips per day. The developers
should be required to contribute a proportionate share of the total cost of such a study
based upon this trip generation figure.
Without a proportionate contribution from this project, these additional vehicle trips will
impact the interchange without due compensation. The net result will be that existing
taxpayers will be required to pick up the cost of this impact.
The proposed preliminary plan shows a single culde-sac offof Ukele Lane. A secondary
25 ft. "emergency access, utility and drainage easement" is shown providing access to the
lots in the west end of the subdivision. A more effective access configuration would be a
loop streetthrough the development from Ukele Lane to Highway 6 &24. This
configuration would provide better access to the proJect, dual access for emergency
purposes and better access for road maintenance.
Project drainage must be designed to avoid any increase in historic runofffrom the site.
Silt lies at the mouth of four separate drainages. The headwaters of these drainages all lie
outside of the municipal boundaries of the town. Any increase over historic runoff rates
will adversely impact drainage control structures designed and installed in town. All
drainage calculations for projects that impact these watercourses must consider the design
characteristics of the lower basin drainage structures. Redesign and reconstruction of the
existing facilities is a very expensive proposition. Any redesign or reconstruction
necessitated by adverse runoffcharacteristics in the upper basins will cause an undue
hardship for existing taxpayers.
tb
ln summary, it is requested that the Garfield County planning commission and county
commissioners consider the following conditions as they review the Ukele Acres
Subdivision.
and residential units to provide a buffer from adjoining areas.
allowed and a requirement for use of kennels should be considered.
regarding surrounding agricultural uses and methods of minimizing
conflicts.
towards a comprehensive study of the traffic impacts on the Silt I70
interchange. This could be accomplished through coordination with the
town and other developers.
connects Ukele Lane with Highway 6 &.24.
would adversely impact existing drainage courses off-site.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input about this project. lf you have questions,
or would like to discuss any of the issues in more detail, please feel free to contact me at
your earliest convenience.
ll
I'hE rc UU
GARFIELD COUNTY
REGETyED |untew
Building and Planning DePartment
Febnrary 28,2ffi0
Ro: Ukele Acres PreliminrrY Plan
DearRe;rriervAgency:
Enclosed please find an application that will go b,ef-ore 1leJragnns co.q9ip.r9^o1owednesdar,
lprir ri, ioOO. please *brit t*ritt* comneats by MOI'IDAY,IVI,ARCII 27,2000.:
If you need any furtlrer inforuration, please contact me. I look forward to working with you ou
[i. up,pfi""tio, fot a oine (9) lot su6ivision located near tlre Town of Silt'
ThankyotlW
Kit Lyon \-/
SeniorPlanner
Enclosrne
I 9.Co .
tA, *D Ptr toN TO
\LEAUL€| A l€^r"
AF rrc Lotl d')
Uf lLt lY EACet^i'brS
{ta) vr,L.iY ct' ALL
a€fp?rl cooQ.i.
SPoqta, o* Pt *Y P. € ' €o
tQ.o*tr LaT LttrE't Csrcecf 9'a€)
Hw-a rtat trld
p.g- lttaatuetz 3_ A_ ?qo
Tel: 945-t2 l2lEgrxt 384'5m4 109 8th Stre€,t, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO t160f
ll,o
Jl&.GE"lyEE ffA,fr S S Z0dB
'(.a7-I 'J:61-----i -('--t '. r .,...
i q'C -- -J i',x.lr ,e.. !,ra
i i,: qitQqc.?pn?
S +r!-t .. 1
- - -
1.!l3.tt2
r '. :i{:
r___@ir*___,
i
---t-H;9.--{\
|"+
lo -'I\i.
i to' vtrt ?sa$\s*
I -\- \
-t'cntu, ,*r rr)tu \v&tMa !'cs6' \
\\.
w.8.
| '.^d
ll
I ti)T rc l?JII ,J.rztzJ tLn-| ltt oqc. I
j\ - .,,g', \srii4;nE f..,etue ,q.ol \
I
[sther Courl
:r' t.a* Ud:t/o q J.t cjc ;osa
gDst :
f'w lu& c*?t
'.4o ).a, t@ '
6*.aq Cw ta;o, .
t-,r, ,rro ar^,.,,,
i
, :,r@, ,
\
i Eu,ldthg cVretqsal.\
)td \{
tr i ...1iii f: -: i:l'" '-;':i';::" :
! _ -_t!DZ:rJT I
"l-'-
- -
?utono .-,htelope
., i
.,*.
!,i
!rt7.'u-
)-
I
:
tfi.'I L__
'"tgorr.rl
I ;a4'
l---__
rcT *7:2.,rX.97'h.tt
J.8C @
'+i
s(t
t.
Nla
Nt
s
Nia
$a\
s<
N.S
t
!ai.
\
!\
tr
5
,4
s
J'c
l:!il| /crrure,
?aztj
t'trZIZ ,4C/?Et
:
PR4Z,/,V//V/Ef
PIAT
XX TOTAL PHGE.62 XX ft
lhr-U/-UU lJ:44 lron-USXESI l,'' n EI{0 EJI
2524 Blichmang Ave.
Cr"and Junction. CO 81505
Marsh 7,2000
Garfrcld Corrnty
Planning Dept.
Kit Lyon
Senior Planner
Dear Kit:
etsz44434g I-350 P.ollll F-tg3
As per yolrr requesr, I have reviewed the Ukele Acres Subdivision plan. U S West will
aeed a l5' easement along the tronr lot line of Lors L,2,3,7, 8, and 9 of Esther Cr.
Lors zt and 6 fie currefily provided service fiom facilities on Hwy 6 & 24. Lot 5 wili
also be fed from Hwy 6 &24 via exisring easement.
lf you require any addirional iuformarion, please cotrtacl me on 970-244-+916. Thank
you for your assisrance.
Sincerely,
Carsoo Bell
[ield Engineer
\B
lllsnESr
REe il\ri ,'1 , '',' i'I 7 i,i i11
FITfr
+,
82/LA/zaao 23:23 6258627 ROAD AND BRIDGE
Memo
Tol Jef Leqisn - Planrfrg @tmont
FronmTorn Ruceell
Deb: VZllllW
Rr: Smith Subdivision Al(A Ukele Acres
On 101&99 lrevieued the proposed Smilh SuMivision aketctt plm, locabd
ecljawrt to CR 216. I rrculd arggpat thst tre clweloper ba reaponsbb for the
follor,ving improvements.
1. Dedicate 15'a&litkrnal R.O.W along CR 216 br the entio lengtt of
developrnent.
2. Rebuild Uklele Ln. to e minor ollodor straUe as dgfirTed by Garfield
Cormty eubdivision regulatlon 9 : 35 with cttip seel diving surfe fo
entire longth of development.
3. All trdic oontrol devicee instalbd per rnanud on trafc ontrd devicas.
(Stop signs)
Obtain driveuay permit from Garfield Cotrnty Road E Bridge dcplerfrn€nt
fo irilrsection.
lf ferpes are proposed, they mwt be d R.O.W ancl o^ners propefi.
PAGE AL
4.
tr
. Pagp I
l?
Memo
To: Kit Lyon - Planning department
From:Tom Russell
Date;03/09/00
Re: Ukele Acres Preliminary Plan
Kit,
I have revieued the comments from John Taufer's letter dated Feb.21,2000. On
page 6, he responded to a conversation betr,neen him and l, about the chipseal on
that portion of roadway near his subdivision. ti g-ln .
lh"yeA,yeed that no chip sealuould be needed on the road.- rSl!-P'
] u*rderstand that impact fees from this subdivision will eventually be used for the
rodd improvements.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
ElvEDrh\R102008
"F,
. Page 1
;)o
STA|E OF COLOTUDO
COTORADO GEOLOGICAT SURVEY
Division of Minerals and GmlogY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-261'l
FAX: (303) 866-2461
Re:
March 27,2000
Ms Kit Lyon
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ukele Acres
CGS Review No. GA-00-0011
Dear Ms Lyon:
In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972) I visited this property to
review the plat. A Preliminary Geotechnical Study prepared by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech
(November 1999) was included in the referral.
1) Soil. The soil is composed of alluvial fan deposits derived from Wasatch parent material. The
blow counts at different horizons in a number of borings indicated low strength materials. The
swell-consolidation tests show some tendency for consolidation after wetting. H-P Geotech
recommends footings sized for a low bearing pressure, which is appropriate for such soils.
The size of the community water tank is not stated. This will be a heavily loaded structure, and
the load will vary. Foundation designs for the tank should be carefully engineered, so that
settlement (and subsequent damage) does not result. A mat foundation should be considered.
It is absolutely necessary that drainage be controlled at the site, as the soils are likely to
consolidate after wetting, and may cause structural damage. Slopes should grade away from
houses, and xeriscaping should be implemented for ground cover. Roof downspouts should
discharge at least 6 ft from the houses.
2) Septic systems. Each lot should have a backup site for a leach field, whether the field is
conventional absorption or engineered. The leach field sites should be removed from auxiliary
construction (sheds) and animal containment areas.
In summary, the site can be successfully developed with close attention to surface drainage,
which is critical in managing problem soils. Please call me if there are any questions.
DEPARTMENT OF
NAIURAL
RESOLIRCES
Bill Owens
Covernor
Creg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Michael 8. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geolo8ist
and Director
RECEIVED APR O
"O* ) I
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
John W. Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1 192
March 13,2000
Kit Lyon
Senior Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning Deparunent
109 8ih Sfieet, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Ukele Acres Preliminary Plan
Dear Kit:
RECEIVENHARI5ZUO8
DEPABTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg Walcher, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Chuck Lewis, Chairman. Mark LeValley, Vice Chairman. Bernard L. Black, Jr.,Secretary
Members, Bick Enstrom . Marianna Flaftopoulos . Arnold Salazar. Robert Shoemaker. Philip James
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATUBAL RESOURCES
cc: Steve Yamashita
fr, n,:,1 ri ?::P, ?.?#,HYn;nor
;tffi;t-flxa';:"o Bles''
For Wildlife -
For People
I have reviewed the preliminary plan for Ukele Acres and I m quite familiar with
ttre site. The Dvision of Wildlife is satisfied with those portions of the protective
covenants that concern wildlife that the Smith's included at my suggestion. The
DOW can find no significant impact to wildlife with this suMivision plan if the
protective coveirants are approved and emforced in their present form.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment and to work with the
developer.
Respectfully'
P* 0*
Don Crane
Di sfiict Wildlife manager
ffi
)>-
STATE OF COLOTUDO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1 31 3 Sherman Street, Room 81 B
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3581
FAx: (303) 866-3589
http//water.state.co.us/defau lt.htm
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Dept
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Bill Owens
Governor
March 21,2000 Creg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
Re:Ukele Acres Subdivision - Preliminary Plan
SW %Section 4 & NW %Section 9, TO S, R 92 W, 6TH PM
Water Division 5, Water District 39
Dear Ms. Lyon:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a 24.981 acre parcel into
nine (9) residential lots, with a total of 11 residential dwellings to be served by a centralwell. This
proposal is a modiflcation of a previous submittal for the Smith Subdivision (our letter of April 16,
1999 is attached). Total in-house water use for the 11 dwellings is estimated at 350 gallons per
day or approximately 4.3 acre-feet per year. The applicant has obtained contract #95081SJS(a)
for 11 acre-feet of water from the West Divide Water Conservancy District (District), and permit no.
53426-F was issued on March 20,2000 pursuant to this water allotment contract and the District's
temporary substitute supply plan.
Permit no. 53426-F limits use of the well to household purposes inside 11 single-family
dwellings, the irrigation of 1.5 acres of lawns and gardens (approximately 6,000 square feet per
dwelling), and the watering of domestic animals. Although irrigation is allowed by permit no.
53426-F, water for irrigation on each lot is to be provided by the applicant's surface water rights
consisting of 3.75 shares in the Grand River Ditch Company's Lower Cactus Valley Ditch.
A report from Paul Bussone, P.E, of Resource Engineering, lnc., indicates the well was
test pumped on June 22, 1999 at a rate of 16.6 galions per minute for 24 hours. The static
water level was measured at 43.5 feet, and the maximum drawdown was approximately 3.6 feet
below this level. Based on this test, Mr. Bussone concluded that this well could provide an
adequate physical water supply for the in-house uses associated with 11 single-family dwellings.
The source of the proposed water supply would be tributary to the Colorado River. Due to
the fact that the Colorado River is overappropriated, a plan for augmentation is required to offset
depletions caused by the development. However, since this development is within area A of the
District's temporary substitute supply plan, this office has issued permit no. 53426-F. Note that
supply plans are temporary by definition, and that to provide for a permanent water supply,
permit no. 53426-F must ultimately be included in a water court approved plan for augmentation.
a-?
Kit Lyon
Ukele Acres
March 21,2000
Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1XhXl), C.R.S., it is our opinion that the proposed water
supply will not cause injury to decreed water rights, and based on a sustained yield in the above
reported range, and with appropriate storage capacity, the use of the proposed welt should be
adequate for a potable wgler supply. lf you or the applicant has any questions concerning this
matter, please contact Jeff Deatherage of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
I(WKJD/U keleAcres.doc
Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Jim Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 3g
>rl
ry'/Jo-A
STATE OF COLORADO
, OFFICE OF THE STATE ENCINEERl ' Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
I 3 1 3 Sherman Street, Room 8l 8
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3581
FAX: (103) 866-3589
http //warer.state.co.us/defau I t. htm
John Barbee
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Aprit 16, 1999 iiiji l:' 'i$
'1,i:,.-,,
l-t: L:i
.; $r-.*$;irl.rsg
: t: :;"jj: iI "j Bill Orvens
Covernor
Creg E. lValcher
Executive Director
Re: Smith Subrdivision
S% Sec. 6 & N% Sec. 9, TOS, R92W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. Districts 39 & 45
Dear Mr. Barbee:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 24.6 acres into
9 lots, ranging 'from 2.21o 4.2 acres each, with one single family dwelling on each lot. The applicant proposes to
provide water through a central water system, utilizing the well with Permit No. 46427-F pursuant to contract No.
95081sJS(a) with the West Divide Water Conservancy District (the District). A copy of the contract was not
provided. Sewage disposal will be through individual septic systems.
Although well permits for the intended this use may be available if the well is included in the District's
temporary substitute supply plan, the existing well permit and contract do not allow the intended use, no new
well permit application has been submitted for review by this office, and there is no guarantee that a well
permit can be issued. Furthermore, to be considered a legally reliable source of water the well should be
included in a court approved augmentation plan, since there is no guarantee that a temporary substitute
supply plan will be renewed. No information was provided on the adequacy of the water supply.
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(hXl), that the proposed water
supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights. Due to insufficient information we cannot comment
on the physical adequacy of the water supply. lf you or the applicant has any questions concerning this
matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
',',,". ;-1. : y ;;r .,. . ,. . . Hal D. Simpson, P.ELi,l il. ,:r,,lr,^J"'.,,!.j5 Srate Engineercii:,.riiiill,, ,r
lktr 2/>./
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
KWKCMUsmith.doc
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
James R Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 39
Robert C. Klenda, Water Commissioner, District 45
)5
Form No.
GWS-25
APPLICANT
OFFICE OF TH TATE ENGINEER
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3s81 LIC
RONALDW&JEANMSMITH
31947HWY6&24
stLT, co 81652-
(970) 876-2070
OF USE AN EXISTI
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 053426
DIV. 5 WD 39 DES. BASIN MD
APPROVED WELL LOCATION
GARFIELD COUNTY
NW 114 NW 114 Section 9
Township 6 S Range 92 W Sixth P.M.
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
200 Ft. from North Section Line
650 Ft. from West Section Line
CHANGE/EXP
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit
does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested
water right from seeking relief in a civil court action.
2) Thb construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval
of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Constru'ction and Pump lnstallation
Contractors in accordance with Rule 18.
3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) for the expansion of use of an existing well, Permit no; 50767-F (expired),
appropriating ground water tributary to the Colorado River, as an alternate point of diversion to the Avalanche Canal and
Siphon, on the condition that the well shall be operated only when the West Divide Water Conservancy District's substitute
water supply plan, approved by the State Engineer, is in effect, and when a water allotment contract between the well owner
and the West Divide Water Conservancy District for the release of replacement water from Ruedi Reservoir is in effect, or
under an approved plan for augmentation. WDWCD contract #95081SJS(a).
4) The old well constructed under permit no. 10593 and previously permitted under permit no.46427-F must be plugged and
abandoned in accordance with Rule 15 of the Water Well Construction Rules. A Well Abandonment Report form must be
submitted affirming that the old well was plugged and abandoned.
5) The use of ground water from this well is limited to ordinary household purposes inside 11 single family dwellings, the
irrigation of not more than 1.5 acres of gardens and lawns (approximately 6,000 square feet per dwelling), and the
watering of domestic animals. All use of this well will be curtailed unless the water allotment contract or a plan for
augmentation is in effect.
6) The maximum pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 15 GPM.
7) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 'l 'l acre-feet.
8) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case
number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means.and precautions to preserve these markings.
9) This well shall be located not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit and not less than 600 feet from
any existing well.
10) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all
diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon
request'
7}) = -2a-]at>
r{AR 2 0 2m {%i- T-uy ' lIAn,rn qt
EXPIRATION DATE
)-u
Memorandum
To: Kit Lyon
From: Steve Anthony
Re; Ukele Acres
Date: March 22,2000
l. Revegetation Plan.
The submitted revegetation plan is fine.
2. Covenants.
A. The covenants should include language that reminds landowners that it is
their responsibility, according to the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, to
manage any County Noxious Weeds that are on their property. This could
go under the "maintenance of property'' section.
B. Management of noxious weeds on roadways, drainage ditches, and
corlmon areas should be addressed. Responsibility for this should be
designated.
2l
GARFIELD COT]NTY NO)trOUS WEED LIST
Common name
Leaff spurge
Russian knapweed
Yellow starthistle
Plumeless thistle
Houndstongue
Common burdock
Scotch thistle
Canada thistle
Spotted knapweed
DifRrse knapweed
Dalmation toadflax
Yellow toadflax
Hoary cress
Saltcedar
Saltcedar
Oxeye Daisy
Jointed Goatgrass
Chicory
Musk thistle
Purple loosestrife
Russian olive
Scientific name
Euphorbia esula
Acroptilon repew
Centourea solstitalis
Carduus acanthoides
Cynoglossum fficinale
Arctium mimts
Onopordtm acanlhium
Cirsium atrense
Centaurea maculosa
Centaurea diffusa
Linaria dalmatica
Linaria vulgaris
Cardaria draba
Tamarix pantiflora
Tamarix ramosissima
C hry s ant he mum I euc ant heum
Aegilops qiindrica
Cichorium intybus
Carduus rulans
Lythrum salicaria
E I ae a gnus an gus t ifo I i a
THoues P. Damss*lNoru
Shciff ofGarfiilrlConty
GARFIELD COUNfi SHERIFF'S DEPT.
P.O. Box 249 . Glcnrvood Springs, CO 81602
(970) 94s-04s3
Fax (970) 945.7651
,, .&ECEIVED TIIAR 0 s 2$[!u
- ^- |
Date: March 7,200A
":-,-l:ffi*@
Re: Ukele Acres Preliminary Plan
The Sheriffs Office has reviewed the attached Ukele Acres Preliminary Plan and r,r,ould like to
address the following concems at this point in the application. 1) The need to ensure that the
cul-de-sac at the end of Ester Court has a radius large enough to accommodate fire or EMS
equipment's turn around ratio. 2) The existing road offof Highway 6 &24 that u,ill access Lots
4,5 and 6 also provide the ability for emergency equipment to turn arr:und 3) AII roads and
roadways shall be clearly marked with correct County road numbers and names. 4) All street
addresses be clearly marked and visible from the County Road or access roads
2j
REueIVED
SlBColoradoAve.
P.O. Box 219
Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81602
1970)945-7755 rEL
19701 945-9210 F/\X
{301) 893-r 608 DENVER DIRECT UNE
March 30,2000
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Offrce
109 Eighth Steet, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8 1 601 -3303
RE: Ukele Acres Subdivision- Preliminary Plan Review
Dear Kit:
At the request of Garfield County, Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) has reviewed the
Preliminary Plan submittal for the Ukele Acres Subdivision near Silt. Our comments on technical
issues are presented below.
WATER ST]PPLY
A microscopic particulate analysis test should be conducted for the well water supply due to
the presence of non-coliform bacteria and the relatively shallow well construction.
Section 20.1 of the covenants should reference the West Divide Water Conservancy Distict
(WDWCD) water allotment contract. The results of the water quality and the need for
individual water treatment facilities should also be included in this section.
Reference to the WDWCD allotment contact and 6,000 square-feet of inigation should be
removed from Section 20.2. We recommend that this section provide initial rules and
regulations for use and operation of the irrigation system.
The well permit issued for the project (53426-F) is based on the WDWCD's substitute
water supply plan. A water court approved augmentation plan will ultimately be required
for the well. The Applicant should include this cost in the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement or indicate in Section 20.1 of the covenants that the lot owners are responsible
for this cost with the WDWCD when it arises.
WATER SYSTEM
Although the well permit allows for outside irrigation (6,000 square-feet per lot), the
potable water system is not designed for outside inigation and the covenants should
prohibit such uses in Section 20.1 and20.2.
The disinfection treatnent system should consider use of liquid chlorine rather than gaseous
chlorine for a small HOA system.
t.
2.
J.
4.
5.
6.
DENVER {3031 48Gr700 DURANGO 1970) 259-74t t
2A
BOUIDER - (3031 473-9500 ,-/V
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Office
March 30, 2000
Page 2
7. A letter should be obtained from the Buming Mountain Fire Protection District regarding
the 10,000-gallon fire storage requirement.
8. We recommend the well water quality be tested for nitrates on an annual basis. This should
be noted in Section 20.1 ofthe covenants.
WASTEWATER
9. The use of evapotranspiration (ET) systems for this project is strongly discouraged.
10. An ISDS management plan should be included in Section 7 of the covenants. Plan
components typically include special design considerations/criteria, inspection schedule,
and a homeowners guide to maintaining an ISDS system.
DRAINAGE
ll.The existing drainage system should be shown (e.g., culverts across Highway 6) and it
should be demonstrated how the proposed system fits in with the existing systems.
12. A typical detail for the detention ponds and outlets should be shown.
13. The submittal does not indicate if the Applicant or the future lot owners will construct the
"individual" detention ponds. A drainage easement should be shown on the Plat for these
ponds. If constructed by lot owners, then the engineering criteria for the pond to comply
with County regulations and the Master Drainage Plan for the project must be indicated on
the Plat. A Colorado registered professional engineer must design the ponds.
14. The covenants should indicate that the HOA and/or individual lot owners are responsible
for maintaining a functional detention basin(s).
SOILS/GEOLOGY
15. Due to the potential for settlement, differential movement, and groundwater conditions on
the project, site-specific geotechnical studies should be conducted for proper foundation
design. This should be reflected in Section 22 of the covenants and on the Plat.
WETLANDS
16. The submittal should address the presence/absence of wetland areas and discuss/analyzsthe
impacts, if any, from the project. Field observations indicate that wetlands may exist in the
southem and western areas ofthe property.
E:\Work\WWE\92 I -047. I I 0\PreliminaryPlanReview.doc 3l
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Office
March 30, 2000
Page 3
ROADS
17. A fully executed copy of the CDOT access permit should be submitted
preliminary plan approval.
18. The existing driveway/new entrance road has an S-curve with a 37-foot
minimum radius is 50 feet for a public road according to County regulations.
prior to any
radius. The
The entrance
road should be revised.
19. The new entrance road should be a dedicated public right-of-way and not an access
easement.
DITCHES
20. The Lower Cactus Valley Ditch easement should be dedicated to the Grand Valley Ditch
Company with a formal Easement Agreement or otherwise accepted in writing by the ditch
company, whichever may be the appropriate legal course of action.
21. The access easement for the Dunbar family, heirs and assigns should be developed into a
specific described easement shown on the Plat.
22. The Applicant should consider safety issues with a large ditch through the project.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Very truly yours,
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
cc: Don DeFord, Esq., Garfield County
JeffSimonson, P.E., Schmueser Gordon Meyer
Paul Bussone, P.E., Resource Engineering, Inc.
E:\Work\WWE92 I -047. I I O\PreliminaryPlanReview.doc